This is just a re-release. If you aren't interested in replaying them, that's OK. But in terms of price... they were FREE to Gametap subscribers when they were released 5 years ago. Where did you find them for sale? How much did you pay for them? We'd love to know since we never made any money from them!

certainly sorry to hear that they were sold at a loss, but i did get them as a gametap subscriber at the time, had just had much fun with the sam and max series through gametap, so to be frank was looking for something similar in the same vein.i will admit too, i was really hoping for more of the Grimm series, for what it was it was a really enjoyable series.

@phogan, that's right. But it doesn't explain how "Too-DAMN-Much" (the person who started this thread) paid for them in the first place. Also, the content was made free to subscribers, but our deal only funded us for development - did not include us in Gametap's overall revenue stream (like subscriber money). Even if it had... I doubt we would have made any money. Since the content was released DRM-free to the press prior to episodes being released on Gametap, everyone just grabbed the torrents. It was pirated like crazy, but it never made a dime of profit for us (Spicy Horse) nor do I think it helped GameTap much (since everyone was just pirating it anyone). Not much point in offering "exclusive content" to subscribers when the content isn't really exclusive.

it doesn't, of course.i really have no clue at this point, it was an incredibly long time ago and i'm not quite sure at this point that even if i did have interest in figuring out for sure i would be able to.i will say though, that that summer i remember a promotion with coca cola (codes inside of 24 packs), sam and max games, gametap (maybe that's where coca cola fit in, free membership for a day or certain number of hours possibly, or certain number of games) and there was also some other thing which i thought was a spicy horse promotion where X number of people to show up first could play the episodes free on the day of release.

i'm definitely sorry you guys didn't make money off of the series, but honestly, i'd have felt bad about putting down anymore than $30 for all included, if even that, as i said, they were disposable and linear but at least enjoyable the first time, desperation gaming at it's finest.and for what it's worth, i'm really sure i wound up paying at least something for the majority of them, but i won't say i didn't penny pinch where i could, it's not really a series i'm interested in supporting due to the major flaws with the game design itself and it seems like an incredibly cynical cash in to be shoveling them off to steam greenlight so far after the fact as well.

Too-Damn,Well, there's no reason to feel bad. We never asked people to pay for them before. Only a few months ago did we finally decide to put them on our own gaming portal (SpicyWorld) - and again, we only did that because people kept asking us about them. Understand, from where we're sitting, there wasn't (isn't?) much value in them... based on the original "performance" we saw - we might have even lost the original game assets and source code! There does seem to be a group of die-hard fans out there... who are we to deny them their Grimm on Steam?

Not sure putting them up on Greenlight, where those same fans can vote to decide if they'll be published or not, is something to describe as "cynical." We're also not looking for a "cash in," since we're talking about pricing them below $9.99 (for 12+ hours of content)... That's a price everyone involved in the discussion (here on Greenlight) thinks is fair. Again, who are we to tell them they are wrong?

You do understand we're just normal people going about our days, developing games and making the best decisions we know how? We sometimes make mistakes. We try to learn from those. We don't "shovel" stuff, as a rule. And we don't sit around thinking about ways to "cash in." It's strange to see gamers portray developers in this fashion. Care to explain why, in this case, you think it's appropriate?

Also, if we said were interested in making money from our efforts (as in, earning a living for the work we do) - would that make us bad people? If our games have flaws should we burn them before releasing them? Seems there wouldn't be many games in the world if that was the routine. And if you don't like something... a type of food, music or game... why even pay any attention to it?

The beauty of Greenlight is that you don't have to vote for Grimm (or any of our other titles). So ... don't. Pretty easy. No?

mainly because it's as you've stated 5 year old content that quite frankly failed to turn a profit the first time, at least you didn't rename it to survivor stories or whatever to really ice the♥♥♥♥♥♥cake, but that is quite a cynical cash in.at any rate, i enjoyed the games for what they were and for that if nothing else i refuse to let personal opinion (or arguably confirmation bias) color my decision to vote this towards greenlight, afterall, i enjoyed it, i'm sure others will, i just don't like the idea that steam greenlight is a last resort chance to make money if you fail the first time around.

@Too-DAMN, Seems you misunderstand the nature of the original Grimm development and development deal.

The deal *never* provided for Spicy Horse to profit from the game in any way shape or form. The game was, from the start, developed and presented as what's usually described as a "loss leader." (see this Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader)

GameTap funded the development and Spicy Horse developed the game always knowing that it would not, could not, make a profit.

That being the case, we have no way of knowing whether or not the game "failed" to make a profit the first time around. It's like you're suggesting a car "fails" to be a boat when you throw it in the ocean and it sinks.

You've still not addressed this antagonistic portrayal of developers hoping to profit from their efforts. It's a legit question being directed at you. Would love to hear your definition of a "cynical cash in." Why is posting digital content to Greenlight in the hopes that it might eventually end up on a digital distribution network a "cynical cash in?" What's wrong with developers hoping to make money so they can pay salaries, buy food - and do all the things people normally do in exchange for work effort?

Would all of this bother you less if the game weren't so old? What if we only charged $0.99 for all the content? What would you consider a fair price? If the game had been hugely successful years ago, and then we brought it to Steam, would that still be a cash in? There are plenty of examples of that sort of business model on the platform.

Anyway, very interested in hearing your insights on this topic. We're still trying our best to understand the negativity. Maybe we can adjust the way we present these things and avoid it in the future. If you can help with that, we'd appreciate it. :)

you just did hear my definition of a cynical cash in, in light of further information that you provided it doesn't really fit however, i agree.to be honest, i'm still always amazed at any developer who doesn't pursue steam as their front line for distribution really, i suppose it may have been arguably less prominent five years ago however.to the age vs price question no not really, personally at least it's more up to personal preference, i really mostly enjoy and support games where i can just lose myself in for as long as i like and not really be led by a story or the progression of, but i must say Grimm is an exception, i really liked the concept, it's so vile in a totally different way to see disney sanitize old fairy tales to the point of being child safe that the fresh and realistic (to the original portrayl) way of story telling was one of the major things i enjoyed about it.of course as well nothing is wrong with a developer turning a profit, i think personally i'm just a really tough person to please, i keep wondering if i'm falling out of love with gaming or the medium is just turning more and more towards lazy linear corridor shooters with barely any semblance of being in the world - looking at you bioshit infinite - as opposed to being on a roller coaster with the beautiful phallacy of yourself being the driver and not passenger.it's frankly one of the reasons i go a bit out of my way when and where possible to support open world and infinitely replayable games like minecraft, terraria, starmade, dayz and so on, those are complete worlds, or even complete universes where players can get lost inside of it for as long as they want, i guess i like my escapism a bit towards the extreme end of the spectrum, you want a world to seem alive to me, let me live in it, really live not take a guided tour.

i think really, it's credit to american mcgee that his depictions in the games he makes that he can take most any subject and turn it to rot (figuratively, i hope you guys do well in your business endeavors) in front of the eyes of the player and present such a unique and interesting while also dark and quite vile presentation and have people just really enjoy themselves getting lost in the story telling, that is exceedingly rare these days, even games the majority's opinion thinks have a compelling or well thought out story, i really can't agree, let's go back to infinite here, i mean from even the standpoint of an amateur writer you can clearly see what led to the multiverse culmination, in my spare time i've started a few handfuls of stories only to later realize that i'd quite solidly written myself into a corner, but i will say with pride i've yet to cop out and just go "multiverse explanation lul", it's a lazy, half♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ easy way out of literally any corner you write yourself into, nothing levine or anyone else should be proud to have "accomplished".

nah don't do that please, you know your niche and i wish you the best with it! :)it's weird though, me and my lady and my best friend gather around the glow of our computer monitors each night more or less to play minecraft, i guess family game night works a bit different in this era and i have to say it's a large portion of our enjoyment that must be credited to the fabulous work of the modding community, there's always something new to see or blow up, or over engineer, i doubt we'll ever fall out of love with something so constantly in a state of re-invention.

@Spicy Horse Games Well that sucks, hopefully this time it will be more profitable for you.Good luck. If it's gets greenlit I'll pick it up, the ones I played on gametap were fun and it would be great to see the rest of them.

wow...way to complain about nothing and pretty much insult one of the few awesomely creative Devs out there. I'm not really one to idolize media creators or anything, but American Magee and Tim Schaefer are easily the most creative devs in the industry, and franky I find the accusation that either would resort to cash grabs or shoveling out titles absolutely rediculous.

I wish I'd seen this when American was still responding to you, I'd have loved to chat with him. Much like Shaefer's games, his are largely under appreciated. I just think it sucks both had to move away from the AAA model, esp since I'm not a big fan of the direction Spicy hourse has taken so far. I'd love to see them do more smaller games like this or stacking, ect rather than that online arena type game they made, or these facebook/browser type games. Certainly they could make some great smaller/indie type games and make a good profit off of those?

Hell, I'd kill to see an Alice 3 and I think it'd work rather well as an episodic type thing. assuming EA doesn't own all the rights, which the probably do...